I mean of course its about optics. Most of the privacy concerns around the practices people are upset with facebook over have been discussed now for at least 15 years by literally everyone doing anything remotely connected to (ugh about to use horrid buzzword) web 2.0.
Everyone in facebook leadership was aware of privacy issues, they made the decisions they made anyway and are only now backing off even a little for reasons of public perception. If they "sincerely cared" there would never have been an issue. They care no only to the point where it concerns their marketability. Until something like Zuck getting doxed or something and it causing his marriage to melt down no they won't really care about privacy issues; at least not beyond the optics.
NTDS.dit dumping aside after you already have escalated permissions on domain control the main method of obtaining windows hashes is to MTIM authentication attempts and collect them off the wire so to speak.
You use tools that provide fake DNS(6), netbios, wpad and some other types of broadcast responses or use other methods like good old fashioned arp spoofing to get windows hosts to authenticate with you. Optionally when signing is disabled or not used you might relay the authentication attempt to a real system of your choosing and execute a replay like attack rather than a password attack or simple hash passing attack.
Often you want to go ahead and crack the hashes you get because that will of course allow you to subsequently authenticate to services that don't speak NTLM or might need you to authenticate a second time. Example you want to connect to RDP and logon to a desktop.
There is always doubt; unless you were wearing a MAGA at the time of the accusation. In that case its guilty no matter what the other evidence might suggest.
Compared to Linux (xwindows) making GUI applications with.NET and Visual Studio is a lot easier. I have seen projects with the Raspberry pi such as smart mirrors or low end kiosks. Which being able to make GUI applications, or that hook up to Microsoft type services such as Active Directory or even SQL server.
I don't buy it. I can't think of single good reason not use a restricted browser to deliver a web application to a kiosk. Either you are doing something complex enough to require sitting down or its probably just CRUD. If its just CURD a web browser is good enough. That might as well be chromium or firefox and that might as well be on a hardended kiosk distro.
Than you build you application in whatever you like. That can be.Net and SQLServer; authored in Visual Studio. Then you can run it all on Windows -or- Linux.
BONUS you don't have to figure out how to update a bunch of kiosks when you make changes to the application.
Its literally garbage. It survives because it was the first quick messaging platform and its difficult to for anyone to move on because a handful of important people like POTUS use it. Since you have to follow twitter anyway if your interesting in seeing what those handful of folks post it make using anything else a tough sell.
I really wish Donald would just pick ANY other platform. All the press would then be forced to watch that platform. Which would make them use it too. A lot of other world leaders would likely be forced to follow as well; leading to a twitter destroying snow ball.
I do something similar. I have all my home services: http proxy, dvr, file server, several web applications, router, DLNA server; etc split out into containers. Why? precisely because I DO want to be able to install updates and apply patches. Containers make that easy. As long as I get the kernel right and don't break LXC there isn't much on the host that will impact services.
I can upgrade each container (and easily revert to a btrfs snapshot of it if things go wrong) at time. I can test and resolve any issues which sadly are pretty damn common, one service at a time. Sometimes the issues are specific to the service sometime the fix is more an OS level thing that I can make a note of and apply quickly when I update the other containers. What I don't want to deal with is update everything at once or have one host filesystem and upgrade and hope nothing breaks. I don't have time to sit and test everything for 2 hours. I don't want to sit down Sunday night and find I got none of my shows recorded all week. I don't want my wife to call on Tuesday while I am at client out of state and tell me she can't surf the web.
Containers solve that problem well. Oh and they let me do it all on a little low power ARM system; good luck doing that with full VMs. The I/O alone would make it impossible. I can run all this on a couple sata-ssds without problems. I don't want to go back to some whitebox PC or old server hardware with fans roaring away stuffed in a corner somewhere either.
On the other hand a lot of people are using containers to AVOID patching and updating anything ever - and yes that is going to lead to terrible security problems. It also basically defeats any enterprise patch management and platform standards plan that might be out there. Pretty much in a commercial setting I'd say either you need a mature dev-ops organization ( IE not some guy who said hey this docker thing is cool lets toss it in) where IT Security has input or container technologies should be avoided at this stage.
I don't know. I probably have more money than I can afford to loose (if I don't plan to work til I die anyway) tied up in my real-estate (which I live in) and at the bank. Both are insured, the bank by the FDIC, the house by a mutual causality company of good reputation.
You could argue that I have to many of my eggs in to few baskets. I would counter argue that if my bank fails or something happens to the house AND their respective insurer simultaneously fails. Odds are pretty good world events are interesting enough that they money will be the least of my concerns.
look, I cited the very legitimate ethical, legal, freedom loving concern with the idea.
I just think we would find lots of surprises if we actually tried something like this. Oh yeah the system should keep fine its fully redundant, oops wait its using a cert issued by a CA in $SOMEOTHERCOUNTRY and nobody set it up to send the entire chain. Boom all the clients going to fetch that intermediate CA now can't verify the server and won't connect...
That kinda stuff is the reality of complex interconnected systems and although I am uncomfortable with our government gaining a HOWTO for isolating American networks. I also wish we did have the capability to do it and a good understanding of what breaks when you do; should world again break out into the sort of conflict that might necessitate that sort of thing. Ultimately I come down on the side of WWIII being less likely than some three letter agency deciding they need to unplug the entire nation as part of some crazy scheme to frame a political enemy of their for the kiddie porn or what have you but, I think its shame we have to accept the risk of not being able to keep intruders off the network even in war time because our government is so packed with short sighted fools.
A trip down memory lane is fun and all; but the WWW in 2019 is all but completely cut off from older browsers. Basically anything that can't speak SSL3.0 won't connect to any ssl/tls servers; those which do speak ssl 3.0 still can't connect to much because most things need tls now. Even sites that would render (potentially) mostly live on servers that are now https only or just send a redirect to https for any http requests.
Essentially without a proxy server that can speak the down level protocol to the client while speaking newer protocols to the sever and NOT using CONNECT; its dead. TL:DR I don't think you can even visit slashdot.org with Netscape 2.0 without additional software to facilitate that.
I wonder how survivable an internet cut would really be in terms of domestic services..
How many things are mistakenly pointed at foreign DNS sources?
What assumptions do CDNs make about location and sources, DNS horizens etc that could prove faulty?
What complex filters and routing cost rules applied to BGP won't handle an event of that scale well?
What gremlins lurk in platforms like Azure and AWS that will behave badly if all routes to non-domestic hosts suddenly go away. That isnt a failure mode that gets a lot testing at a guess. Sometimes even a lot of redundancy does not roll as smoothly as we might imagine when failure modes we did not account for crop up. See Wells Fargo last week..
Honestly I applaud the Russians for undertaking the exercises. I'd *almost* say it would be a good thing for us to do here in the good old USA to do but I am not sure I want the government this administration or any other to have a working tested kill switch because I kinda be it would be misused ultimately.
The hoax is that we can do jack or shit about it. Climate change is happening but its positive feedback loop and its driven perhaps in part by our inputs but every bit as much by things well outside our control like solar maximums.
Attempting to prevent climate change is madness, its harmful to people who are not %1ers. It might not cost others as much in absolute terms as the 1%ers but in terms of choices and ability to raise their station measures against climate change are enormously destructive. The big secret in the West is that right don't care to get richer (they have everything they want already), what they really want is prevent social mobility. They don't want you moving up and they don't want any of their friends to ever pay for their mistakes, like say massive sub prime lending..
To that end tying your hands and making your pay for the rope in the name of climate change is perfect!
If our leaders were responsible and wanted what was good for us the focus would be on adapting to the changing climate; not trying to prevent it. By the way adapting is important because YES climate change is going to upend our food supply etc as oceans become less productive. We need to be making plans and finding solutions. Instead we are sinking trillions into a futile effort to prevent something we can't and won't stop; but again the elites don't care if you die!
ah but in Google land the user should never sit an see the throbber while the computer does something. No rather they should go no useful feedback at all while their browser sits and polls inefficiently over and over again to see if the server has completed some operation.
Disagree requiring regular changes does several things:
1) It fights direct password reuse. Which matters because most attackers are going for the lowest hanging fruit. You get e-mail password pairs from one organization or application they will try them directly on the other. Even having changed from P@ssw0rd! to P@ssw0rd!! might very well spare your account.
2) It provides an opportunity to get passwords policy complaint. If you used to only require 8 chars but now require 10, it means you wont have people with old 8 char passwords in the system for long
3) It exposes account compromises. Many actors work very hard to gain persistence. They will compromise multiple accounts and only use some of them. Rotations mean they can only do that for so long. -and yes these things do play out over years so closing access to an account 90 days later might still be meaningful - See Marriott.
4) It improves account ability because it make password sharing have more friction. It forces departments etc to requests accounts for everyone who needs one rather trying to have four clerks login with one account, and keep each other informed as the current password. \
I guess the point i was making to clarify is that we are at the point now where the data is really just a long list of not uncommonly used mostly terrible passwords. At someone a long list list of those just becomes more entries of the same thing or predictable various for which if you used some rules you would generate anyway.
People will never stop using bad passwords so you are also going to some hits if you try enough of them or try a few of them over a large enough number of accounts. The linked in breach was a huge deal when it happened, back in 2k12 few orgs had 2fa and tons of people re-used their linked in password. You could pretty much filter by e-mail domain and just trying connecting to any orgs VPN and sooner or later - you won...It was that easy. Not so today.
Maybe if there was some new breach data out of GMail or something it would be a little like that again.
I use this data a lot and I can tell you that most of it is pretty old now. Old enough that its very very rapidly declining in usefulness. Most places have forced password changes.
The level of reuse password at $COMPANY) is the same as user@$COMPANY.com on linkedIn is pretty much gone. Most shops have turned up complexity since then as well. So even doing statistics by industry/region/application type/ etc and picking the most frequently used passwords for brute force attacks isn't paying off nearly so often.
That isn't to say the word lists don't work frequently. Its not say they don't get you a cracked hash or two when you can get hold of an apps password database or some NTDS.dit files. They do but its not getting you accounts that are highly privileged any more; at least not much better than even older stuff like rockyou right there in kali does. You bob in stock rooms account this way. You get busted right away using that account by the SEIM as well because Bob only logs in once a week normal to read e-mail, the moment you touch another system with his account flags go up..
You are making my point for me. The lawyer's own negligence in this case is partly what endangered his clients privacy. The privacy risks around dumb phones was know 20 years go. People did pull the batteries before going to secure locations (where they did not want tracked) or going to private meetings or (gasp) you left it at your desk and closed the door to meeting room.
For some reason dumb people now carry smart phones everywhere they go no matter what and you can't remove the battery. I suggest powering it off is sufficient in 99% of cases unless you have specific reason to think you are being targeted in some way. It is a network attached listening device and location beacon though at the end of the day and you should treat it that way. When privacy is a major concern leave it at home / locked in your desk drawer and come get it when your are done or turn the damn thing off.
Ditto for smart speakers and TVs, should they violate your privacy - no - could they - most certainly, so treat them as such. Maybe put it in the den, but not the bedroom or your home office. I don't know consider the risks and rewards for each situation and make your choices.
I am going say Bad Apple on this one. As I stated on the other article I am not sure that this app really could do a lot of the things that are being claimed. Terrible for privacy sure, but apps implementing ATS and other best practices should still have been secure.
So now we have Apple essentially ban hammering an application outside the app store. Think about that. If you have an enterprise, and your write an application, to run on devices you have purchased; Apple might still come along and disable it; if they don't like you or it!
This isn't really good for users, this is really anti-freedom/anti-ownership type action here. Just because it might protect a few dolts from malicious actors like facebook, does not automatically make it good.
The problem is not even the cost; its how the deal is structured. Everyone loves to look at coal/gas/oil etc and argue the total costs including the externalized ones like increased respiratory disease add up to more than nuclear and maybe even add up to more than costs associated with neuclear disasters like Japan.
The problem is that when something like Fukushima happens the costs are incurred up front are enormous large areas of property are lost immediately. Massive amounts of money have to be poured into cleanup and containment; even as compared to an ash or oil spill.
The costs of the other energy choices however even if greater are borne out over time. Society remains productive during that time and pays them in what are effectively installments. We can live with it. The same way individuals can live with mortgage payment of $800 a month but would be bankrupt if you required them fork over $200K this afternoon.
if Facebook makes full use of the level of access they are given by asking users to install the Certificate, they will have the ability to continuously collect the following types of data: private messages in social media apps, chats from in instant messaging apps
I am not sure this true, but It would not surprise me if some of the changes Google and Apple have made in recent years are a response to stuff like this. You essentially can't modify the Trust store on Android anymore unless you root the device. You can not for example install a private CA certificate on an android phone. Rig up the DNS server on your network with an A rec www.facebook.com 192.168.1.10 and put a server there with a www.facebook.com cert you have issues and go view in in chrome on that android phone without getting a cert warning... (you can do this on a rooted device though)
Similarly on an Apple device if the apps are using ATS, and certs are already pinned etc you will also have problems even if you install an in house CA.
Trust me I know this because i have to test a lot of mobile apps and this all makes it excruciatingly painful. Usually requiring either rooted devices or patching the applications just to get a look at the web services conversation they are using.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean of course its about optics. Most of the privacy concerns around the practices people are upset with facebook over have been discussed now for at least 15 years by literally everyone doing anything remotely connected to (ugh about to use horrid buzzword) web 2.0.
Everyone in facebook leadership was aware of privacy issues, they made the decisions they made anyway and are only now backing off even a little for reasons of public perception. If they "sincerely cared" there would never have been an issue. They care no only to the point where it concerns their marketability. Until something like Zuck getting doxed or something and it causing his marriage to melt down no they won't really care about privacy issues; at least not beyond the optics.
NTDS.dit dumping aside after you already have escalated permissions on domain control the main method of obtaining windows hashes is to MTIM authentication attempts and collect them off the wire so to speak.
You use tools that provide fake DNS(6), netbios, wpad and some other types of broadcast responses or use other methods like good old fashioned arp spoofing to get windows hosts to authenticate with you. Optionally when signing is disabled or not used you might relay the authentication attempt to a real system of your choosing and execute a replay like attack rather than a password attack or simple hash passing attack.
Often you want to go ahead and crack the hashes you get because that will of course allow you to subsequently authenticate to services that don't speak NTLM or might need you to authenticate a second time. Example you want to connect to RDP and logon to a desktop.
There is always doubt; unless you were wearing a MAGA at the time of the accusation. In that case its guilty no matter what the other evidence might suggest.
Compared to Linux (xwindows) making GUI applications with .NET and Visual Studio is a lot easier. I have seen projects with the Raspberry pi such as smart mirrors or low end kiosks. Which being able to make GUI applications, or that hook up to Microsoft type services such as Active Directory or even SQL server.
I don't buy it. I can't think of single good reason not use a restricted browser to deliver a web application to a kiosk. Either you are doing something complex enough to require sitting down or its probably just CRUD. If its just CURD a web browser is good enough. That might as well be chromium or firefox and that might as well be on a hardended kiosk distro.
Than you build you application in whatever you like. That can be .Net and SQLServer; authored in Visual Studio. Then you can run it all on Windows -or- Linux.
BONUS you don't have to figure out how to update a bunch of kiosks when you make changes to the application.
Yes but but only a tiny percentage of those things have ARM builds.
So you are not running it; at least not with usable performance on a rPi.
Its literally garbage. It survives because it was the first quick messaging platform and its difficult to for anyone to move on because a handful of important people like POTUS use it. Since you have to follow twitter anyway if your interesting in seeing what those handful of folks post it make using anything else a tough sell.
I really wish Donald would just pick ANY other platform. All the press would then be forced to watch that platform. Which would make them use it too. A lot of other world leaders would likely be forced to follow as well; leading to a twitter destroying snow ball.
^^^Containers have a place.
I do something similar. I have all my home services: http proxy, dvr, file server, several web applications, router, DLNA server; etc split out into containers. Why? precisely because I DO want to be able to install updates and apply patches. Containers make that easy. As long as I get the kernel right and don't break LXC there isn't much on the host that will impact services.
I can upgrade each container (and easily revert to a btrfs snapshot of it if things go wrong) at time. I can test and resolve any issues which sadly are pretty damn common, one service at a time. Sometimes the issues are specific to the service sometime the fix is more an OS level thing that I can make a note of and apply quickly when I update the other containers. What I don't want to deal with is update everything at once or have one host filesystem and upgrade and hope nothing breaks. I don't have time to sit and test everything for 2 hours. I don't want to sit down Sunday night and find I got none of my shows recorded all week. I don't want my wife to call on Tuesday while I am at client out of state and tell me she can't surf the web.
Containers solve that problem well. Oh and they let me do it all on a little low power ARM system; good luck doing that with full VMs. The I/O alone would make it impossible. I can run all this on a couple sata-ssds without problems. I don't want to go back to some whitebox PC or old server hardware with fans roaring away stuffed in a corner somewhere either.
On the other hand a lot of people are using containers to AVOID patching and updating anything ever - and yes that is going to lead to terrible security problems. It also basically defeats any enterprise patch management and platform standards plan that might be out there. Pretty much in a commercial setting I'd say either you need a mature dev-ops organization ( IE not some guy who said hey this docker thing is cool lets toss it in) where IT Security has input or container technologies should be avoided at this stage.
I don't know. I probably have more money than I can afford to loose (if I don't plan to work til I die anyway) tied up in my real-estate (which I live in) and at the bank. Both are insured, the bank by the FDIC, the house by a mutual causality company of good reputation.
You could argue that I have to many of my eggs in to few baskets. I would counter argue that if my bank fails or something happens to the house AND their respective insurer simultaneously fails. Odds are pretty good world events are interesting enough that they money will be the least of my concerns.
look, I cited the very legitimate ethical, legal, freedom loving concern with the idea.
I just think we would find lots of surprises if we actually tried something like this. Oh yeah the system should keep fine its fully redundant, oops wait its using a cert issued by a CA in $SOMEOTHERCOUNTRY and nobody set it up to send the entire chain. Boom all the clients going to fetch that intermediate CA now can't verify the server and won't connect...
That kinda stuff is the reality of complex interconnected systems and although I am uncomfortable with our government gaining a HOWTO for isolating American networks. I also wish we did have the capability to do it and a good understanding of what breaks when you do; should world again break out into the sort of conflict that might necessitate that sort of thing. Ultimately I come down on the side of WWIII being less likely than some three letter agency deciding they need to unplug the entire nation as part of some crazy scheme to frame a political enemy of their for the kiddie porn or what have you but, I think its shame we have to accept the risk of not being able to keep intruders off the network even in war time because our government is so packed with short sighted fools.
A trip down memory lane is fun and all; but the WWW in 2019 is all but completely cut off from older browsers. Basically anything that can't speak SSL3.0 won't connect to any ssl/tls servers; those which do speak ssl 3.0 still can't connect to much because most things need tls now. Even sites that would render (potentially) mostly live on servers that are now https only or just send a redirect to https for any http requests.
Essentially without a proxy server that can speak the down level protocol to the client while speaking newer protocols to the sever and NOT using CONNECT; its dead. TL:DR I don't think you can even visit slashdot.org with Netscape 2.0 without additional software to facilitate that.
I wonder how survivable an internet cut would really be in terms of domestic services..
How many things are mistakenly pointed at foreign DNS sources?
What assumptions do CDNs make about location and sources, DNS horizens etc that could prove faulty?
What complex filters and routing cost rules applied to BGP won't handle an event of that scale well?
What gremlins lurk in platforms like Azure and AWS that will behave badly if all routes to non-domestic hosts suddenly go away. That isnt a failure mode that gets a lot testing at a guess. Sometimes even a lot of redundancy does not roll as smoothly as we might imagine when failure modes we did not account for crop up. See Wells Fargo last week..
Honestly I applaud the Russians for undertaking the exercises. I'd *almost* say it would be a good thing for us to do here in the good old USA to do but I am not sure I want the government this administration or any other to have a working tested kill switch because I kinda be it would be misused ultimately.
Even the right type of CSRF bug could enable something like this.
The hoax is that we can do jack or shit about it. Climate change is happening but its positive feedback loop and its driven perhaps in part by our inputs but every bit as much by things well outside our control like solar maximums.
Attempting to prevent climate change is madness, its harmful to people who are not %1ers. It might not cost others as much in absolute terms as the 1%ers but in terms of choices and ability to raise their station measures against climate change are enormously destructive. The big secret in the West is that right don't care to get richer (they have everything they want already), what they really want is prevent social mobility. They don't want you moving up and they don't want any of their friends to ever pay for their mistakes, like say massive sub prime lending..
To that end tying your hands and making your pay for the rope in the name of climate change is perfect!
If our leaders were responsible and wanted what was good for us the focus would be on adapting to the changing climate; not trying to prevent it. By the way adapting is important because YES climate change is going to upend our food supply etc as oceans become less productive. We need to be making plans and finding solutions. Instead we are sinking trillions into a futile effort to prevent something we can't and won't stop; but again the elites don't care if you die!
ah but in Google land the user should never sit an see the throbber while the computer does something. No rather they should go no useful feedback at all while their browser sits and polls inefficiently over and over again to see if the server has completed some operation.
Disagree requiring regular changes does several things:
1) It fights direct password reuse. Which matters because most attackers are going for the lowest hanging fruit. You get e-mail password pairs from one organization or application they will try them directly on the other. Even having changed from P@ssw0rd! to P@ssw0rd!! might very well spare your account.
2) It provides an opportunity to get passwords policy complaint. If you used to only require 8 chars but now require 10, it means you wont have people with old 8 char passwords in the system for long
3) It exposes account compromises. Many actors work very hard to gain persistence. They will compromise multiple accounts and only use some of them. Rotations mean they can only do that for so long. -and yes these things do play out over years so closing access to an account 90 days later might still be meaningful - See Marriott.
4) It improves account ability because it make password sharing have more friction. It forces departments etc to requests accounts for everyone who needs one rather trying to have four clerks login with one account, and keep each other informed as the current password.
\
Let state legislatures appoint them as was originally done obviously.
We already have the House to directly represent the people. The senate should be there to represent interests of the states.
Well that is hardly a problem unique to HPI..
I guess the point i was making to clarify is that we are at the point now where the data is really just a long list of not uncommonly used mostly terrible passwords. At someone a long list list of those just becomes more entries of the same thing or predictable various for which if you used some rules you would generate anyway.
People will never stop using bad passwords so you are also going to some hits if you try enough of them or try a few of them over a large enough number of accounts. The linked in breach was a huge deal when it happened, back in 2k12 few orgs had 2fa and tons of people re-used their linked in password. You could pretty much filter by e-mail domain and just trying connecting to any orgs VPN and sooner or later - you won...It was that easy. Not so today.
Maybe if there was some new breach data out of GMail or something it would be a little like that again.
I use this data a lot and I can tell you that most of it is pretty old now. Old enough that its very very rapidly declining in usefulness. Most places have forced password changes.
The level of reuse password at $COMPANY) is the same as user@$COMPANY.com on linkedIn is pretty much gone. Most shops have turned up complexity since then as well. So even doing statistics by industry/region/application type/ etc and picking the most frequently used passwords for brute force attacks isn't paying off nearly so often.
That isn't to say the word lists don't work frequently. Its not say they don't get you a cracked hash or two when you can get hold of an apps password database or some NTDS.dit files. They do but its not getting you accounts that are highly privileged any more; at least not much better than even older stuff like rockyou right there in kali does. You bob in stock rooms account this way. You get busted right away using that account by the SEIM as well because Bob only logs in once a week normal to read e-mail, the moment you touch another system with his account flags go up..
You are making my point for me. The lawyer's own negligence in this case is partly what endangered his clients privacy. The privacy risks around dumb phones was know 20 years go. People did pull the batteries before going to secure locations (where they did not want tracked) or going to private meetings or (gasp) you left it at your desk and closed the door to meeting room.
For some reason dumb people now carry smart phones everywhere they go no matter what and you can't remove the battery. I suggest powering it off is sufficient in 99% of cases unless you have specific reason to think you are being targeted in some way. It is a network attached listening device and location beacon though at the end of the day and you should treat it that way. When privacy is a major concern leave it at home / locked in your desk drawer and come get it when your are done or turn the damn thing off.
Ditto for smart speakers and TVs, should they violate your privacy - no - could they - most certainly, so treat them as such. Maybe put it in the den, but not the bedroom or your home office. I don't know consider the risks and rewards for each situation and make your choices.
Why did he think bringing a powered on recording device to private meeting where no recording should take place was good opsec?
Smart phones have no place in a secure facility.
I bet someone let a certificate somewhere expire. I'd put money on it!
Yes I am totally shilling for facebook in post where I refer to them as a "malicious actor."
I am not defending facebook at all. I am just saying this a bit of an over-reach on the part of Apple I think.
I am going say Bad Apple on this one. As I stated on the other article I am not sure that this app really could do a lot of the things that are being claimed. Terrible for privacy sure, but apps implementing ATS and other best practices should still have been secure.
So now we have Apple essentially ban hammering an application outside the app store. Think about that. If you have an enterprise, and your write an application, to run on devices you have purchased; Apple might still come along and disable it; if they don't like you or it!
This isn't really good for users, this is really anti-freedom/anti-ownership type action here. Just because it might protect a few dolts from malicious actors like facebook, does not automatically make it good.
The problem is not even the cost; its how the deal is structured. Everyone loves to look at coal/gas/oil etc and argue the total costs including the externalized ones like increased respiratory disease add up to more than nuclear and maybe even add up to more than costs associated with neuclear disasters like Japan.
The problem is that when something like Fukushima happens the costs are incurred up front are enormous large areas of property are lost immediately. Massive amounts of money have to be poured into cleanup and containment; even as compared to an ash or oil spill.
The costs of the other energy choices however even if greater are borne out over time. Society remains productive during that time and pays them in what are effectively installments. We can live with it. The same way individuals can live with mortgage payment of $800 a month but would be bankrupt if you required them fork over $200K this afternoon.
if Facebook makes full use of the level of access they are given by asking users to install the Certificate, they will have the ability to continuously collect the following types of data: private messages in social media apps, chats from in instant messaging apps
I am not sure this true, but It would not surprise me if some of the changes Google and Apple have made in recent years are a response to stuff like this. You essentially can't modify the Trust store on Android anymore unless you root the device. You can not for example install a private CA certificate on an android phone. Rig up the DNS server on your network with an A rec www.facebook.com 192.168.1.10 and put a server there with a www.facebook.com cert you have issues and go view in in chrome on that android phone without getting a cert warning... (you can do this on a rooted device though)
Similarly on an Apple device if the apps are using ATS, and certs are already pinned etc you will also have problems even if you install an in house CA.
Trust me I know this because i have to test a lot of mobile apps and this all makes it excruciatingly painful. Usually requiring either rooted devices or patching the applications just to get a look at the web services conversation they are using.